In each case, the drive to label has been under the guise of "Right to Know". But the right to know what? Has the individual been given enough information to actually develop a reasoned opinion? Random data, provided by labeling, does not give any context to assess importance.
For example, is this fast food item (200 g serving, 500 cal total, 26 g total fat, 0 transfat, 22 g protein, 20% daily iron) healthy or not? What about this item from my home (170 g serving, 600 cal total, 29 g total fat, 0 transfat, 20 g protein, 25% daily iron)? Raw numbers do not emphasize the difference between a McRib® and two peanut butter sandwiches. Either is a valid choice for lunch.
This lack of context also opens an opportunity to manipulate the masses. The cell phone and GMO labeling is guided by the precautionary principle. "If anything might be bad, it must be eliminated." Raw data does not reveal risk/reward analysis. Consider that the chemical dihydrogen monoxide causes about 4000 deaths/year in the US. Is that enough to seek banning DHMO, for public safety? With regards to cell phone radiation, how much radiation occurs with other sources; like power transmission, terrestrial and satellite TV/radio, sunlight, etc? If the individual does not know this, then what comparison with cell phones can be determined?